> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:53:57PM +, Scott Bloom wrote:
> > From: Development [mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org] On
> > Behalf Of André Pönitz
> > [...]
> > An actual "need" for a unique pointer is typically a sign that
> > things are created, passed around until they end up somwher
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:08:33PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > Allowing _both_ I have not seen actively endorsed by anyone,
> > this only makes a messy incosnsistent API.
>
> I would allow both. It is the only way to remain source
> compatible, while making it possible for those that w
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:13:17AM +, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
> >> We should also move Qt smart pointers to Qt5Compat module. The
> >> destiny of QPointer is not well defined so far.
> >
> > This was not part of the research and should probably discussed
> > separately.
>
> I agree. But if we de
On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 20:19:36 CET André Pönitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
> > I want to summarize intermediate results of the discussion and return it
> > back to the track.
> >
> >
> > Subject: using smart pointers in the API.
> > Good idea.
On 12/02/20 15:20, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
>> AFAIK, we don't have a procedure to make project-level decisions by majority
>> vote.
> True. We're discussing now. The goal here is to take people opinions and
> arguments into account before making a decision.
The problem I see, is that in your summ
> AFAIK, we don't have a procedure to make project-level decisions by majority
> vote.
True. We're discussing now. The goal here is to take people opinions and
arguments into account before making a decision.
We have intermediate results of the discussion now. Next step is
collecting the rest o
12.02.2020, 12:36, "Vitaly Fanaskov" :
>> You seem to repeat your initial statements.
>
> Yes, because most of the participants of this discussion tend to agree,
> as far as I can see.
AFAIK, we don't have a procedure to make project-level decisions by majority
vote.
If we want to achieve any
>> We should also move Qt smart pointers to Qt5Compat module. The destiny
>> of QPointer is not well defined so far.
> This was not part of the research and should probably discussed separately.
I agree. But if we decide using standard smart pointers, why should we
keep Qt smart pointers as a part
Many thanks Vitaly for taking the time and effort to get the discussion going.
-Original Message-
>From: Development On Behalf Of Vitaly
>Fanaskov
>Sent: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 16:15 Uhr
>To: development @qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] The future of smart pointers in Qt A
> You seem to repeat your initial statements.
Yes, because most of the participants of this discussion tend to agree,
as far as I can see.
On 2/11/20 8:19 PM, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
>> I want to summarize intermediate results of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
